Get Serious

I understand The Chronicle Review from The Chronicle Of Higher Education is part of the anti-war echo chamber. But does that give Alan Wolfe leave to write in its pages like a smartass just because he figures he can get away with it?

In a discussion of two fairly unimporant books about Bush and the Iraq war, Wolfe thinks nothing of taking childish, clueless swipes along the way.

He starts a sentence "[i]t would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq, and its dreadful results, on the military..." Okay, he's amongst friends, they assume the war has failed, but which dreadful "results" is he referring to? That we removed from power perhaps the most deranged and dangerous (to his own people and others) dictator in the world? That we did it taking, by military standards for an operation of this size, fairly low casualties (as painful as any casualties are)? That Iraq has held elections? That we may finally have a functioning democracy in the center of the Middle East, part of a multi-pronged strategy to get at the "root problems" of the situation?

But that's nothing. Here's how he summarizes what's happened:

A determined group of neoconservative intellectuals developed the theory (preventive warfare), the objective (toppling Saddam Hussein), the strategy (a unilateralist coalition of the willing), the tactics (massive firepower and limited numbers of troops), and the rationale (Saddam's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction).

Let's go over this bit by bit. Wolfe says the neoconservatives (determined ones, no less) provided the theory behind the war. Actually, while they had some say, the big names who supported the war in the Bush administration were good old conservatives--in fact, Bush didn't have a single neocon among his top advisors. And what is this strategy?--preventive war. Well, actually the idea is pretty old, and we've done it before. Furthermore, we'd been in a state of war with Iraq since the early 90s, with only a shaky truce, that Iraq didn't follow, preventing full-out atttacks. Finally, if it weren't obvious before, 9/11 made it quite clear that in future situations, preventive actions might be required--I hope anyone who can't see this never holds high office.

Next, he says the objective of the war was to topple Saddam Hussein. This was the short-term objective, and we succeeded spectacularly. Now everyone can pretend he wasn't a major threat. If he were still around, all we'd be hearing now is how can we have any serious foreign policy while we allow Saddam Hussein to rule.

Wolfe calls our strategy a "unilateralist coalition of the willing." Let's not talk about how we went through the UN to get unanimous approval for a resolution giving Saddam one last chance, how Saddam failed, and how it then became clear we were being played by a bunch of countries (some on the take) who had no intention of fighting. Let's not even note when we fought Iraq with the UN's approval in the early 90s, we did all the heavy lifting. Let's just say Wolfe is being a smartass.

He defines our tactics as massive firepower and a limited number of troops. Guess what, you always have a limited number of troops. Ours succeeded in taking Iraq before anyone could shout we were failing. (Well, a few did.) There was a lot of controversy--after the fact--if there were enough to hold the country once we took over. (This is one of thousands of possible disasters that we were supposed to be completely prepared for.) I have my doubts--I happen to think more troops would have just meant a larger shooting gallery, but I certainly could be wrong. The point is, neither the neocons, nor the conservatives who actually ran the war, said "let's send in a limited number of troops." They sent in the the number they thought they needed. It might have been a mistake, but Wolfe is just being a jerk here.

Finally, he claims the rationale for the war was Saddam's alleged possession of WMD. No matter how many time I hear this dishonest argument, I still can't believe people are making it. Now don't get me wrong, WMD were a sufficient argument for the war (Saddam had 'em, and either hid them or got rid of them illegally, while prepared to make new ones at a moment's notice), but this was only a small part of the overall rationale.

I've always said the hallmark of serious argument is not necessarily how well you make your case, but how fairly you represent the claims of your opponent. Alan Wolfe fails on this count. Why should he expect anyone to take him seriously?